Morgan Smith writes, “It was deeply disappointing to read that SkyView Academy will no longer participate in Operation Christmas Child because of the threat of a lawsuit from the American Humanist Association.” As a former Colorado legislator, he should know that soliciting in public schools for charities that promote a sectarian religious message violates the U.S. Constitution. Shame on him.

Connie Platt, Denver

This letter was published in the Dec. 2 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Is it really soliciting to make it known that kids can bring items to school to be given to those in need? Just using the word “soliciting” lets you know what the intention is of the letter writer. Her intention is to make the children look deceitful. Shame on Connie Platt.

peterpi

There has to be a reason the school backed down so fast.
Because, if the school had a clear written policy on how charitable drives could take place that was neutral towards religious and non-religious charities alike, they could have defended themselves.
It makes me wonder whether school officials had been allowing this one charity on an informal someone-who-knew-someone basis, and they couldn’t justify how this charity came to be allowed to solicit (yes, thor, solicit — it’s what charities do: solicit donations. What a stupid word for you to get hung up over.) donations and other charities possibly weren’t.

thor

Yes, pete, the letter writer used an accurate word. But I get hung up on intent, not the word itself.

peterpi

You said “Just using the word ‘soliciting’ lets you know what the intention is of the letter writer.”
If I ask you for a donation, I’m soliciting. If you offer me a good or service, you’re soliciting.
Feel free to question Ms. Platt’s motive or reasoning, but her use of the word “solicit” was perfectly proper.

thor

As I wrote, it was accurate.

thor

Yes, pete, the letter writer used an accurate word. But I get hung up on intent, not the word itself.

Dano2

The Castle Rock paper will explain to you why they backed down so fast: the school was wrong.

HTH

Best,

D

guest

I’m sure the American Humanist Association has their own charitable foundation where they can make up what the poor children missed because of the AMA’s lawsuit. They do, don’t they?

peterpi

A Denver Post article has said Operation Christmas Child has more than made up what they might have lost from the school.
So, your kind, generous, self-sacrificing, noble Christians outsmarted those nasty, greedy, soul-less atheists again, guest.
Morality plays are sooo easy to script.

guest

So you think there is too much charity in the world?

peterpi

I never said any such thing.
You’re the one asserting poor children in Mexico missed out on these shoe box gifts because of humanist Grinches.

Yes it was probably unconstitutional. But, speaking as a non-christian, this is trivial. Someone is feeding the poor. There was no evidence that anyone was coerced or embarrassed into participating. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the recipients were encouraged to be religious. They were just given food. Which raises the question of whether this was a really a religious activity under law. Of all the problems with public schools, does this rise to the level where it should be dealt with? People need to get a life.

peterpi

The aid packages include a Gospel message. That makes them religious.
Now, you can argue that the humanist who sued was a spoil-sport, and many would agree with you.
But, there was a religious message with the aid.
The question is, why didn’t the school try to defend its actions?

yaakovwatkins

Okay, I’m wrong, it was obviously illegal. But I have a different question for you. Why don’t anti-religious charities do more to feed the poor?

Dano2

What evidence do you have that non-religious charites fail to do more to feed the poor, and what is your baseline for this evidenceless assertion?

Best,

D

yaakovwatkins

Wonderful question. And my evidence is to be found by simply looking around. First of all, almost all churches and synagogues have small charity funds administered by the clergy. The small group of professionally homeless know that they can collect a fair amount of money by hitting all the houses of prayer in an area. Secondly, Second of all most of the names of organizations which have obvious religious components. This point also applies to hospitals. Two of the three biggest food providers, (Denver Rescue Mission, Salvation Army, and Food Bank) are obviously religious.

But the Foodbank is merely a-religious. Not anti-religious. I was primarily referred to organizations like “Americans United for Separation of Church and State,” American Atheists, and Atheist Alliance. To the best of my knowledge they do nothing for the poor.

Dano2

These named orgs are charitites all of a sudden? And “professionally homeless”?

Good chuckle in the morning, thanks!

Best,

D

guest

Oh, oh. It sounds as if you are not only saying the AMA doesn’t have a charitable arm, but it shouldn’t. I thought humanism was supposed to love mankind.

Dano2

No need to make sh– up. None at all. Unless that is the best you can do.

Best,

D

guest

So humanists don’t love mankind?

Dano2

No need to make sh– up. None at all. Unless that is the best you can do.

Best,

D

guest

You already said this. So what part of my statement was made up?

Dano2

It sounds as if you are not only saying the AMA doesn’t have a
charitable arm, but it shouldn’t. I thought humanism was supposed to love mankind.

Then

the AMA does have a charitable arm that will make up what the poor children missed because of their lawsuit

And so on. Most of your sh– is made up. Are you and your other screen names paid by the word?

Best,

D

guest

Come on DTJ. This is just plain stupid on your part.

You took the two quote out of order, dropped a word in one of them and ignored I was interpreting you in pretty much all of what I said.

In fact I was responding to you saying: “What evidence do you have that non-religious charites fail to do more to feed the poor, and what is your baseline for this evidenceless assertion?

To that I said, “So the AMA does have a charitable arm that will make up what the poor children missed because of their lawsuit. That’s great to hear DTJ.”

I’m guessing you dropped the “So” from your quote because you knew it would show who was really making up sh–.

You then said: “These named orgs are charitites all of a sudden?” to which I replied, “It sounds as if you are not only saying the AMA doesn’t have a charitable arm, but it shouldn’t. I thought humanism was supposed to love mankind.”

And DTJ, don’t flatter yourself. No one would pay anyone to spar with you.

Dano2

You …
ignored I was MISinterpreting you in pretty much all of what I said.

FIFY.

Go away now Boy of Many Screen Names.

You are cr@ptacular at making up sh–. No one here is stupid enough to fall for your comical hand-flapping.

Best,

D

guest

DTJ–saying nothing and doing it badly.

yaakovwatkins

You have to meet these people to appreciate them. They know every minister, priest, and rabbi who give out money. They keep track of their stories. They are really good at what they do. And they make money at it.

peterpi

If you don’t want to donate to people hanging out on street corners, that’s your privilege, but there’s no need to buy into some paranoid self-justification. Just pass them by, and be done with it.

yaakovwatkins

My information is based on meeting and talking to these people. Knowing their names. Keeping track of their stories. They are interesting people. I’m not referring to the people who have fallen on hard times and are trying to get out of trouble. When you know the first group, the second group stands out like a beacon on a cloudy night. And yes sometimes I am wrong.

My wife and I carry boxes of crackers in our cars to give to anyone who wants.

Dano2

And I’m still waiting for any actual, tangible, real evidence that you have that demonstrates non-religious charities fail to do more to feed the poor, and your baseline for this evidenceless assertion.

Not holding my breath, tho, nor do I encourage anyone else to do so while waiting for actual evidence.

Best,

D

yaakovwatkins

Why would you believe that the atheists are giving food to the poor? They don’t claim to be. Whereas the religious groups claim to be. I’m not sure what evidence you would consider valid.

Dano2

It doesn’t matter what I believe: I asked for evidence for your claim.

Any time you want to trot out some evidence would be great – standard rhetorical rules always apply, and have for two and a half millennia, so start there.

Best,

D

yaakovwatkins

There is no reason to believe the opposite.

Dano2

Thank you – you have no evidence for your evidenceless assertion.

We knew that already, but nice to have it confirmed by the person making the evidenceless assertion.

Best,

D

yaakovwatkins

You have to meet these people to appreciate them. They know every minister, priest, and rabbi who give out money. They keep track of their stories. They are really good at what they do. And they make money at it.

guest

So the AMA does have a charitable arm that will make up what the poor children missed because of their lawsuit. That’s great to hear DTJ.

ags4ever

Let’s see. Those who claim to be christians make up between 70 and 75 % of the population of the US. They support christian charities far more than do any non-religous people do.

TLC

I’m with you. Why don’t the atheists do more than sue schools or to force the removal of religious symbols from in front of town halls? If they do, in fact, feed the poor, then they should let that be known. And there are bigger Constitutional issues in this country than schools that allow a religious activity on campus. A lot bigger issues.

toohip

Because unlike Christians, atheists (not Humanists which are not atheists), are TOLERANT. They respect people beliefs, including organized ones, but point out the intolerance and negative religion, mostly Islam and Christianity, creates.

guest

If they are tolerant why did they threaten to sue a school?

Dano2

Why are people tolerant of anyone willfully going against the First Amendment? They foam at anyone even thinking of violating other amendments…

Best,

D

guest

Come on DTJ! This was kids donating to a charity!!! It wasn’t like warmists calling for newspapers not to publish letters from climate skeptics or making the Catholic Church hospitals provide birth control in their health insurance. It’s not like the NSA listening in on everything on the internet or even the TSA performing state sanctioned searches without probable cause. It’s a charity!!

But one thing is for sure. People won’t think of Humanists as harmless eccentrics anymore. They are extremists.

Dano2

You know they can’t defend the action when they call “defending the Constitution” extremists.

How precious.

Best,

D

guest

No, they aren’t defending the Constitution. They are attempting to impose their birdbrained ideas on the 80% of the population who are fine with saying Merry Christmas. What in fact you know is that your comment shows you can’t defend these reprobates.

ags4ever

Yes, when you call those who ARE defending the constituitonal right of freedom of religion and of freedom of speech, you are esxtremists, dano.

ags4ever

who is “going against the first amendment” with the exception of the liberals, atheist and other anti-christian sectors of the public? For all want to suppress the truth of the Gospel at all times. That is the mission of their master, the devil.

You foam at the mouth when anyone upholds the right of CHristians to pray anywhere, or have christian symbols in schools.

ags4ever

except for the ones (like yourself) who clearly show you are not tolerant.

toohip

HUMANISTS ARE NOT ANTI-RELIGIOUS!!! Stop smearing the opposition because you disagree.

From their website on what they believe:

To promote the freedom of speech and the press; to promote religious freedom; to promote artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom.

We challenge discrimination and intolerance based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, or class.

We gratefully accept the benevolent teachings of all religions, but stop short of belief in the supernatural and the religious intolerance that has led to many wars.

yaakovwatkins

They want to decide which parts of other people’s’ beliefs are religious and therefore are not to be allowed in the public sphere. And they do want to discriminate based on religious belief. At least, they don’t want any support of religion in public schools. But they have no problem with support of other philosophical systems.

And they want to censor religious intolerance on the supposed ground that it has led to wars. However in the last 200 years most of the wars have not been religiously based. The intolerance has been philosophical and political. They don’t seem to have a problem with those wars. I refer to the Civil War, the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, and the first Gulf War.

So, from the viewpoint of those of us whose beliefs would be subject to their whims, yes they are anti-religious.

Dano2

My, my, that was a font of cr@ptacuar falsehoods! Spectacularly well done!

Best,

D

yaakovwatkins

Atheists are the ones who are trying to censor people.

toohip

Wrong again. . stop watching Fox News! They don’t want people to use religion in public (that’s tax payer paid) instances. That’s why they made an issue. Otherwise you don’t find humanists concerned with religious charities. So yaako, would you be OK with your public school donating to a Muslim or Atheist charity where prosletyzing is being added to the charity box?
You don’t know what a humanist is, only that’s it’s “non-Christian.”

yaakovwatkins

This is as opposed to public schools teaching that sexual perversion is okay? That disrespecting parental values is okay? That immodest dress is okay? That sexual interaction outside of marriage is okay? That stealing is okay, as long as you do it from large corporations? That not standing for teachers is acceptable behavior?

Actually, the people who are trying to censor other people are the people who brought the lawsuit. It may be justified legally, but they are the ones who are trying to censor. The religious people aren’t trying to stop anything here.

Somehow in your head, believing in the creator is a religious belief but believing that there is no creator is not a religious belief.

ags4ever

why do you assume that anyone with whom you disagree watches fox news? (though the news portion of Fox’s broadcasting is more reliable than any;other broadcasters news.

ags4ever

you’re correct that Humanists are not anti-religious, for they declare themselves to be a religion. But they are against any and all other religions, despite their nonsensical manifesto.

toohip

Let’s go over this again the gift is of “hygiene items, candy and gifts — and a Gospel message — to children around the world.” Not food. Let’s not embellish the reality. Yes, this is a very charitable organization, and while there’s “no harm” in including a religious message, it’s also obvious the charity comes with a catch. And where are “all the problems with public schools” you speak of. Your claim of being “non-christian” isn’t a disclaimer that you’re not biased. We should all agree that any form of charity is a positive, but some less so because of the proselytizing among other things. It might be enough to allow personal choice not to use a charity, but it shouldn’t be enough to sue or create animosity of the “human nature” of charity, which does NOT require religion.

ags4ever

Is anyone refused these items if they don’t accept the gospel message? Don’t believe so. Can you prove that they are being denied those gifts?

ags4ever

how does collecting money to help poor people, those who would go hungry without help, promote a sectarian message? Aren’t we all (or shouldn’t we all) be interested in anything that reduces people’s dependence on the government and the associated high taxes and deficit spending required to meet such unconstitutional spending?

Most of the charities that collect in schools, and on public street corners, like the Salvation Army, the Red Cross and others, even though they were founded by religious persons, do not require that anyone convert to christ before they are allowed to receive food at their shelters.

Prohibiting sectarian organizations that promote religious themes is a violation of the first amendment to the US constituiton, which states that congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

peterpi

You are being disingenuous, and if you’d followed the debate on the earlier letter, you’d know it.
The issue was not the food donation, the issue was the Gospel message.
But it was a great way for you to portray all non-believers as curmudgeons and Scrooges who steal gifts from poor children.
No one is prohibiting sectarian organizations — except in your imagination. The Christmas Child program is still going strong. I bet any number of churches are offering aid through it.
A recent Denver Post article states, “Sheila Lewis, southwest area coordinator for Operation Christmas Child, said some of the parents and students from that school have continued their community service projects and collected a lot more than expected, in part due to the publicity.” The article even gives a Christmas Child Denver-area contact number and drop-off location

You’re probably right about one thing: contributions are likely increased because of the publicity given the charity.

And as for the atheists being curmudgeons, well, in this case they were. Going after evil, law-breaking school kids doesn’t generate sympathy for their cause.

There’s a new menorah erected in a public park in Westminster in memory of Jessica Ridgeway. That should make a good target for the atheists. A religious symbol on a public park paid for by tax dollars. It’s clearly an effort to establish a religion.

toohip

First of all humanists are necessarily atheists, but in a narrow world view, we “understand.” No one is “going after evil, law breaking school kids,” and no one is threatening a law suit (read the article, the letter came from a individual not the Humanist Society). WHY . .does your ilk need to lie about the truth to fan the flame of your pro-Christian religion agenda? Atheists are no more uncaring or insensitive than your ilk.

Dano2

WHY . .does your ilk need to lie about the truth to fan the flame of your pro-Christian religion agenda?

WWJM?

Best,

D

guest

Second paragraph of the article

“SkyView Academy received a letter from the American Humanist Association threatening legal action if the school was a part of Operation Christmas Child, said Lorrie Grove, SkyView Academy board president.”

ags4ever

nothing wrong with putting the Gospel message into any christmas package, for that is the reason for Christmas. Christ was born to be the lamb of god, and take the sins of every man, woman and child on himself, and thereby cleanse us of sin.

Dano2

If you were honest – which you are not – you’d note that no kids went hungry as a result of this action.

WWJLT?

Best,

D

Who Would Jeebus Lie To?

toohip

Exactly. . this was about giving the article states “The Samaritan’s Purse, a non-denominational Christian organization, sends shoeboxes filled with hygiene items, candy and gifts — and a Gospel message — to children around the world.” I don’t see anything about “food” or going hungry in this donation. But when you need to incite others to your cause you alter the message.

ags4ever

nothing wrong with any person being exposed to the truth of the Gospel. toohip.

Dave52

Look, I heard that the Gospel messages, were, in fact, pages torn from Sarah Palin’s new blockbuster Christmas book:
Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas

and used for wrapping the toothpaste, trying to keep it separate from the soap, and this uproar stems from a big misunderstanding.

toohip

The right wants private charities to pick up the slack the gov’t can’t provide. Well that’s fine, but when the private charities use the gift of giving to proselytize that smears the quality of the charity. It’s always “OK” if it’s a religion you endorse or not offended by, but had this been a Muslim, Wicca, or atheist charity with a proselytizing message, I wonder if ags would play the same violin?

ags4ever

Congress shall pass no law… prohibiting the free exercise of religion…” toohip. That means the government cannot stop any religious entity from “proselytizing” as you call it. It can stop religious entities from forcing people to accept their relgion, as Islam proclaims, but if the decision is left up to the individual as all christian denominations preach, then congress and localities and states can do nothing about it.

Since wicca, atheism (which have no charities to my knowledge), are both false religions, they have no authority.

mrfxx

And all the organization had to do was omit including the Bible tracts in the “shoe boxes” of gifts and NONE of this would have occurred.

Dano2

Exactly.

Best,

D

peterpi

Or, stick to collecting from participating churches.
Also, the school should adopt, as soon as possible, a set of guidelines concerning how students can collect for local charities.

ags4ever

why? Charities can supply gifts to anyone. That’s why they are called charities.

ags4ever

why should it have to do that? For that is a violation of their right freely to exercise the tenets (beliefs) of their religion, and their right of free speech.

toohip

I’m sure Connie Platt will be called “un-Christian” or “mean” for daring suggesting that public schools soliciting for religious proselytizing is illegal. Maybe the activist-right can start a recall or something to change the law? The stigma of charity doesn’t come with a blindfold. When it has a catch like marketing a religion, then it’s no longer simple charity.

Robtf777

“Morgan Smith writes, “It was deeply disappointing to read that SkyView
Academy will no longer participate in Operation Christmas Child because
of the threat of a lawsuit from the American Humanist Association.” As a
former Colorado legislator, he should know that soliciting in public
schools for charities that promote a sectarian religious message
violates the U.S. Constitution. Shame on him.”
=================

One of the first things the FIRST United States Congress did was to appropriate federal funds to buy Bibles for public schools.

Apparently SkyView Academy had participated in Operation Christmas Child for some time.

What changed?

Did the Constitution change?

Or did the modern day Griinches and Scrooges of this nation change the “understanding” of the Constitution in a way that our Founding Fathers……who WROTE IT……and who initially put what they WROTE into PRACTICE…….would consider to be……..NUTS……Completely NUTS?

As with the Bible, there may be many ways to “interpret” the Constitution.

There is the One Right Way……the way, in the case of the Bible, God intended……..and the way, in the case of the Constitution, our Founding Fathers intended.

ALL OTHER WAYS ARE WRONG.

The last thing this country needs is a bunch of historical revisionist idiots who want to revise the historical understanding of the Constitution and what it allows and doesn’t allow…….into something that the WRITERS and the SIGNERS and our Founding Fathers…….never put into practice.

The FIRST Congress of the United States…….appropriated the use of federal funds……to buy Bibles for public schools and for public education.

Doing that was as natural for them as…..breathing was.

It is the historical revisionist idiots…….today’s Grinches and Scrooges……..who look at the words that are written…….and “forget” how those words were understood and interpreted for years, decades, scores of years…….and who want us to understand and interpret them in ONLY the context of their Grinch/Scrooge-historical-revisionist-idiot interpretation.

But their interpretation is……WRONG.

DR

“One of the first things the FIRST United States Congress did was to appropriate federal funds to buy Bibles for public schools.”

“The FIRST Congress of the United States…….appropriated the use of federal funds……to buy Bibles for public schools and for public education.”

No, they didn’t.

“The last thing this country needs is a bunch of historical revisionist idiots…”

Then I would suggest you stop reading David Barton.

peterpi

I’m assuming you are correct, but do you have a cite for that? Because I’ve heard other people claim the same thing, about Congress funding (presumably King James Version) bibles.
I know they approved a chaplain.
We can be thankful that Robtf didn’t go off on the canard that the use of “AD” in the dateline of the signing statement of the US Constitution proves that the USA is an officially Christian nation 🙄

ags4ever

What is a canard about stating that use of “anno domini” (in the year of the lord) in the date line of the signing statement of the Constitution shows that this country is a christian country. ?

guest

I think this depends on your definition of the FIRST United States Congress. If you take it to be the Continental Congress, it did indeed instruct the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from “Scotland, Holland or elsewhere.” In 1782 a printer named Robert Aitken asked for congress to officially sanction his US made Bible which he printed at his own expense. The congress quickly did recommend this to all citizens in the country.

peterpi

The Continental Congress predates independence.
1782 = Articles of Confederation, which predates — and were superseded by — the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
At the time of Independence through 1820, some states had state-sanctioned (established) churches, but they all were eventually disestablished. Gee, I wonder why?
Neither Continental Congress requests nor bible endorsements support Robtf’s real point of trying to establish (double-entendre intended, pun intended) the US as an officially Christian nation, a Christian Republic. It won’t fly.
Congress hasn’t endorsed bibles, or breakfast cereals, or orange-flavored breakfast drinks, or brands of bologna, or steakhouses, or car companies, for an awfully long time.
There is no bible officially recognized by any branch of the US government — and you should be grateful for that. What if it chose a translation you or your congregation disapproves of? Hmmm … ? I bet even armed forces chaplains carry books of religious scripture, to use in their duties, of the chaplains’ own choosing and at their own expense.

guest

You are correct about this predating the Constitution, but DR simply dismissed the part of robt’s posting that was correct. And I would argue with you regarding your statement, that the Continental Congress predates independence. We declared our independence on July 4, 1776.which make the Continental Congress the First United States Congress.

peterpi

If you want to praise Robtf’s correct identification of a tree, and ignore the forest he is trying to plant, go right ahead. But you’ll get no help from me.
The USA is a secular country with a Christian majority, and is not an officially Christian country, and for that, I am eternally grateful, and you ought to be also. Your faith might be on the outside.

guest

I saw you take on thor regarding the word soliciting so evidently you are willing to correctly identify a tree and ignore the forest of what he meant. It seems to me that there are people on these boards who if truth were a target would need a 30 round magazine to get close to the bulls-eye.

peterpi

thor used a word to determine Ms. Platt’s entire allegedly selfish atheist agenda.
Robtf has never hidden what his agenda is.
The fact that a bunch of dudes suggested bibles be given to schools doesn’t say anything about the USA today or how the First Amendment should be interpreted.

guest

But that isn’t what DR said.

ags4ever

The first amendment doesn’t need interpretation. It clearly states that the Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in addition to guaranteeing the right of freedom of speech, and of the press, and of peaceable assemblage, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

That amendment does not allow any government entity to ban christian symbols from public buildings or public lands. nor does it give the government any power to tell any denomination what it can preach or teach (with the exception of prohibiting the murder of human beings as a part of some occult ceremony).

ags4ever

The US is a christian country, that tolerates the presence of other religions.

ags4ever

peterpi, the Continental Congress served from 1775 through 1789, when it was replaced by the FIrst US congress under the newly ratified US constitution. The Continental Congress was governed by the Articles of Confederation . Congress did endorse the 20,000 bibles printed by printer Aitken in 1782. And it paid for their circulation throughout the country. Each copy of those printed bibles bore an explanation of the circumstances.

BTW, the first amendment clelarly states: “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. You and your like always forget the “nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof” clause, and act as if congress has the power to prohibit Christian symbols from being displayed on public buildings and on publicly owned lands.

How come there are so many christian crosses in the U.S. National Cemeteries where deceased veterans are buried? Yes they exist along with stars of david, but there’s no problem with that.

peterpi

For quite a while in this country in the 1800s, generic Protestant Christianity was the unofficial, de facto civic religion — which led to harassment of, exclusion of, oppression of, Mormons (why do you think they traveled all the way, on foot, from the Midwest to the Great Salt Lake? Because they wanted the exercise?), Jews (excluded from certain professions and universities by mutual common agreement among those professions and universities), Irish Roman Catholics (arguably the group most persecuted and oppressed in this country on the basis of religion — until they organized and fought for political power. No one’s going to argue religion with a Roman Catholic police officer with a gun or the wrongness of shrines to the saints with an Irish-American firefighter with the means to put out — or not — a fire burning down their business).
Today, Mormons, Jews, Roman Catholics, people of other faiths, people of no professed religion, are mostly accepted in all areas of society. No level of public office is excluded them. And it is precisely because of the rise of the secular state that this is so, in my opinion.

ags4ever

Not just david barton, ignorant one, but the record of the First UNited States Congress (The Continental Congress). This memorial from printer Robert Aitken, and the 20,000 bibles printed by him and sold/distributed throughout the United States at the time, is a matter of public record.

You are the historical revisionist.

Robtf777

“Morgan Smith writes, “It was deeply disappointing to read that SkyView
Academy will no longer participate in Operation Christmas Child because
of the threat of a lawsuit from the American Humanist Association.” As a
former Colorado legislator, he should know that soliciting in public
schools for charities that promote a sectarian religious message
violates the U.S. Constitution. Shame on him.”
=================

One of the first things the FIRST United States Congress did was to appropriate federal funds to buy Bibles for public schools.

Apparently SkyView Academy had participated in Operation Christmas Child for some time.

What changed?

Did the Constitution change?

Or did the modern day Griinches and Scrooges of this nation change the “understanding” of the Constitution in a way that our Founding Fathers……who WROTE IT……and who initially put what they WROTE into PRACTICE…….would consider to be……..NUTS……Completely NUTS?

As with the Bible, there may be many ways to “interpret” the Constitution.

There is the One Right Way……the way, in the case of the Bible, God intended……..and the way, in the case of the Constitution, our Founding Fathers intended.

ALL OTHER WAYS ARE WRONG.

The last thing this country needs is a bunch of historical revisionist idiots who want to revise the historical understanding of the Constitution and what it allows and doesn’t allow…….into something that the WRITERS and the SIGNERS and our Founding Fathers…….never put into practice.

The FIRST Congress of the United States…….appropriated the use of federal funds……to buy Bibles for public schools and for public education.

Doing that was as natural for them as…..breathing was.

It is the historical revisionist idiots…….today’s Grinches and Scrooges……..who look at the words that are written…….and “forget” how those words were understood and interpreted for years, decades, scores of years…….and who want us to understand and interpret them in ONLY the context of their Grinch/Scrooge-historical-revisionist-idiot interpretation.

But their interpretation is……WRONG.

johnrpack

Ms. Platt: …soliciting in public schools for charities that promote a sectarian religious message violates the U.S. Constitution.

As does the Department of Education. The federal government has no authority to be involved in or regulate education whatsoever.

Dano2

You’d better sue then. The USC and Congress have been making laws that affect state’s administration of public education for at least a century, IIRC. Let us know when you begin to collect money to sue, presumably via Cato, AFP, or other such org.

Best,

D

ags4ever

Dano, the Supreme court has no power to make laws. That is the sole responsibility of the US congress (see article I, section one of the Constitution). Of course, to you, any violation of the constitution is acceptable, for to you it is a deeply flawed document.

Dano2

Of course, to you, any violation of the constitution is acceptable, for to you it is a deeply flawed document.

Thank you for dishonest mischaracterization, completely in line with expectations.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.